Internet Standards Documentation (ISDs) and Maturity Levels
draft-klensin-isdbis-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. John C. Klensin | ||
| Last updated | 2010-07-05 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The current IETF standard-track maturity level definitions, including the assumption that most specification of successful protocols would advance rapidly to Internet Standard, the never-used automatic expiration mechanism, and the STD nnnn designation, have not worked well. Users of IETF Standards have found it difficult to determine what standards were associated with others in groups, the actual status of specifications within a related group, and the level of interoperability testing and deployment and use for any given standard or set of features. The community has rarely used the "requirement level" mechanism in recent years. There is now an errata mechanism for published RFCs, but the errata lists do not provide authoritative, consensus-based, corrections to standards- track documents. This document suggests that all of those issues are symptoms of a single system of interrelated issues and problems and proposes an integrated solution.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)